You can't see the Cheques 'cos in 3-D space it is occupying the exact same "space" as the Yellow. It MAY be on a lower and therefore another "layer" but it ain't occupying the exact "rez\r" of the yellow. I don;t have a problem with this. Vegas is doing what it was supposed to do. Now, that is a whole galaxy away from what I would like Vegas to do! But as of yet I don;t see how the programmers can program VEgas to allow for "thickness" in the VEgas 3-D environment?

My solution, for a reverse? Make an actual Event that "twitches" to Cheques from Yellow at the "Event Horizon"!

Grazie

Oh 'cos there is a much simpler way .. Use GenMed Chequers but START with both Black and White squares as yellow on "HOLD" keyframe and when the GenMEd spins to its Event Horizon switch to B and W Chequers!

Grazie

Grazie as far as occupying the same plane I agree but why is the z plane locked??

This is because it is a copy of the yellow plane
So if I delete it and replace with a new media gen then it free to move

Rory

"There ain't no thickness on the Event Horizon!" - Grazie . . ommmmmahhhh..

I haven't done more than read all the posts in this thread so I'm not entirely certain I follow the problem so this maybe of no relevance at all.

Generated media is unique. When you copy it you can create a new object or you can create only a reference to the original object. Given this I can see how something like the behavior you're describing might happen. If the copy is only a reference to the original then I imagine you can't change the attributes. By delete the reference and replacing it with another object then you can change the attributes of that media.
I hope that makes some sense, I seem never too great at explaining this kind of stuff.

Bob.

"By reference" is like everyone watching the same TV broadcast. If the TV station changes something then every set tuned to it shows those same changes. The home viewers can't do anything individually.

"By copy" is like buying the the VHS tape of it. You can fast forward, pause, skip, record over parts, etc. and that affects your tape, not everyone else.

You can't see the Cheques 'cos in 3-D space it is occupying the exact same "space" as the Yellow. It MAY be on a lower and therefore another "layer" but it ain't occupying the exact "rez\r" of the yellow. I don;t have a problem with this. Vegas is doing what it was supposed to do. Now, that is a whole galaxy away from what I would like Vegas to do! But as of yet I don;t see how the programmers can program VEgas to allow for "thickness" in the VEgas 3-D environment?

Grazie, it actually does work in Vegas. Somebody (maybe JR?) once did a 3d cube in Vegas and you could rotate it to any of the six faces from the parent "controller" track. I think maybe Rory is on to something regarding copying a track - I'll play with that and report back.

Currently I got it working by setting the the z-position on the bottom-most square just to the number where it became visible and backed off one. It now shows only when we rotate to the back side.

Jerry

Jerry, yes I understand and you have brought up a fine example that proves my point - a CUBE has 3-D thickness in the very nature and construction. MY point was that you can't see the "backside" of a 2-D construct, here there ain't no thickness and therefore no backside. On the other hand, the Cube has 6 discreet elements to it: Top + Bottom + Front + Back + Left + Right. So, Jerry, please explain to me just which of those 6 elements occupied/occupies exactly the same space as another? My answer would be none - and THAT is exactly the same as a single GenMed layer/lamina. In which case, this is exactly why you CAN see a rotating construct called a cube and why you CAN'T see the backside of a lamina or single layer. The results of seeing the "math" turnover the single layer makes it "appear" as if it is rotating and therefore 3-D, but it isn't - it has no thickness. We can see a Cube rotate because it consists of laminae called GenMed Events, that have been "assembled" into the shape of a Cube - but EACH element is still a none-thick layer. That isn't the same as its Cube construction. Once constructed, sure, you can then rotate that 3-D cube, but that doesn't mean you can rotate each of the elements that created it, and expect to see the rear-side view of one of the layers.

Jerry your: "Currently I got it working by setting the the z-position on the bottom-most square just to the number where it became visible and backed off one." is NOT the exact same space. So sure, you can "fudge" the logic here by creating another layer that is rotating in "sequence", but that still is NOT the rear side of the upper layer. Consequently, as this IS another layer, and does NOT occupy the same 3-D space - "I got it working . . . the z-position . . backed off one . ." Vegas IS doing what it should, playing/flying layers in sequence, like a squadron of Spitfires, and it is therefore NOT A bug. The problem, as I am sure you are well aware of, is that having now got to layers rotating in sequence, at some point you are going to get some annoying parallax and perspective issues, that will reveal to your viewer the lack of "thickness" in all of this. My solution was a single layer Graphical one - make an element that within itself has another side to it when it WILL rotate. This is NOT the same as a rear view, it is only a 6 second graphic that is constructed with primary 3 seconds of Yellow and then a secondary 3 seconds of chequers. Once this is set out with keyframes then this can be rotated every 3 seconds over and over, and as if by magic the chequered backside appears, making it seem as if it has a rear side - which it doesn't!

Until you can convince me otherwise, what I said still stands: layers don't have thickness and can't occupy the same 3-D space. But I am always willing to learn.

Grazie

Until you can convince me otherwise, what I said still stands: layers don't have thickness and can't occupy the same 3-D space. But I am always willing to learn.

Ok, be prepared to learn ;-). Rory was right on when he said he thought duping the track somehow caused the z position to be locked. I just deleted the two child tracks and recreated each individually with the same settings including zero depth. Then I changed the z position on one to -1 and when they rotate about the x axis it changes from the front-side image to the backside image as it rotates through 90 degrees.

I will submit the duping bug to SCS.

Jerry